hypewaders
Last Activity:
Jul 21, 2014
Joined:
Feb 2, 2003
Messages:
12,061
Likes Received:
1
Trophy Points:
0
Birthday:
Sep 10, 1964 (Age: 59)
Location:
The Great Satan
Occupation:
Flight Instructor

Share This Page

hypewaders

Save Changes, 59, from The Great Satan

Registered Senior Member
hypewaders was last seen:
Jul 21, 2014
    1. R1D2
      R1D2
      Hello.
      We are members of the military vets group.
      So I wanted to wish you congratulations on you becoming a MOD.
      I was a lil' late in saying so on the thread an now its locked.
      Good luck to ya.
    2. Bells
      Bells
      Oh thank goodness you are back!
    3. Varda
    4. hypewaders
      hypewaders
      Mafeesh mushkila- kolshi mako. Bkhatrik ya Habeebti, noor hatha lmakan wa baladi.
    5. S.A.M.
      S.A.M.
    6. hypewaders
      hypewaders
      Sorry, signatures are not likely

      It's always been part of our style here- Less clutter.
    7. Red Devil
      Red Devil
      can we not have signatures? I want

      Ignorance is only the lack of knowledge, and darkness is the absence of light
    8. hypewaders
      hypewaders
      A very interesting read, Red Devil. It's very good to have you here; Welcome Aboard!
    9. Red Devil
      Red Devil
      you might be interested in this, off my site:

      http://www.mikekemble.com/misc/k129.html

      I have also had comms with the guy who helped make a brand new dvd on this topic, I think its released this month. It includes interviews with crew.
    10. GeoffP
      GeoffP
      Guh. I take that back. What an absurd statement; particularly so in respect of the subject.
    11. GeoffP
      GeoffP
      Fairness? Selective fairness, I suppose, is better than none at all.
    12. John T. Galt
      John T. Galt
      I do thank you for your efforts and attempts at fairness here. I really do. I have had my issues with mods before and have found that fairness was never the interest of that particular moderator, so your at least hearing me out and digesting some thought into it, is considerably more than that moderator did. Then again, maybe my efforts were not as clam and reasoned as I believe I am attempting to be here.

      I have asked jos repeatedly to answer my question without blinders on. I am trying to get some intellectual feedback on this and he seems incapable of doing it. Teach or learn is the ultimate objective, but it is impossible when one cannot answer a simple question... It seems to me that joes interest is not engaging intellectually, but rather passing by pertinent points so as to inject partisanship within the conversation.
    13. hypewaders
      hypewaders
      It will probably take me some time to mull over the whole thread and how it has played out so far. Without having reviewed it today, my recollection is that it may be mis-titled, or may have led into a topic that could be better resolved in revising the title and where it goes from where it's at. But again, I'll have to look it over.

      It may be that the thread concerned may not be as important as the suggestions you are making to me (and others concerned) to take a broader and more balanced look. That challenge interests me, so I thank you.
    14. hypewaders
      hypewaders
      So I'll now review the thread more closely, and if it seems to me that joepistole has evaded a pertinent challenge from you or anyone, I'll call him out on it. Shifting topic in order to evade controverting information is a form of "trolling" or bullshitting, that I am interested in shedding some light on, even while acknowledging that I've been guilty of it myself. If that's what joe has in fact been doing, then in this situation I do not want to cover for him.

      I hope you'll understand that it does not take moderator "powers" to attempt such analysis and express findings. But if there is a way that moderator or peer/member influence can foster higher standards of discourse here, then I'm interested in learning how to do that. (continued above)
    15. hypewaders
      hypewaders
      Honestly I haven't taken close interest in that thread. If JP is evading a legitimate challenge, I'll see if I can encourage him to face it. My interjections into that thread have more to do with the general trajectory of Sf moderation than that thread in particular: That is, that in order to raise the bar I and other moderators are interested in encouraging and compelling at times a culture here of responding to intellectual challenges. Sometimes the most honorable response (I don't know if this is JP's situation in that thread) is to back down; to acknowledge that the limit of one's thesis or knowledge is looming. Otherwise, the admirable response is to teach.

      Teach or learn. Again, I'm only trying to interject appeals for more intellectually engaged approaches around here. It's clumsy, especially when I try to exert what little influence I can with my own limited understanding and authority here.

      (continued beyond 1k characters above)
    16. John T. Galt
      John T. Galt
      Finishing touches to below response:

      Look at the exchanges in thread, I said the debt was pertinent to the overall argument joe said it wasn't and you agreed with him. Fine, I asked a question specifically related to the OP he inserts the debt argument of which you both said was not pertinent.

      It either is or isn't. If it is pertinent for him, then it is for everyone else. It can't be both ways, and this is what I was referring to about moderation of threads. Certain people are allowed to say certain things and others aren't, the thread in question only proves my point.

      BTW- I do not think a note was heavy handed nor was I implying it. If you inferred, that isn't what I meant.
    17. John T. Galt
      John T. Galt
      Considered.

      There is one last thing. My point about moderation needs to be reviewed by you. Why? Look at that thread now, I asked joe a point blank question that is specifically on topic to the OP and joe not avoided the question, but inserted the debt of which when brought up on this end was not on topic.

      joe is shifting arguments & points to match what he wants when he wants. But invoking comments of your off topic, your delusional, you have no proof (when may have been clearly provided.
    18. hypewaders
      hypewaders
      Yes, I agreed with you especially, that a thread starter's prerogative to define the topic does not mean that the thread starter should shift the topic in order to evade challenge.

      Please note that the only moderation in that thread has been a note. If you think that's heavy-handed, consider if you may be oversensitive concerning moderation and/or your antagonist.

      http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2600177
    19. John T. Galt
      John T. Galt
      Per our exchange on the thread, you do realize what I was saying and what you were agreeing to with me?

      Two other issues as well, I stand by my belief that what was said was on topic, that is one issue. The second is watch joe who has a terrible habit of posting bs and getting away with it. Additionally he also avoids questions by using the argument he tried to use with the thread. He does this constantly.

      Okay, I am just curious as to how you respond. My bigger concern isn't moderation, but the fairness of it. Sometimes it sure looks as if joe gets consideration where others don't, and frankly I feel it is being done with the thread in question.
    20. ahmeeeeeeeeeed
      ahmeeeeeeeeeed
      Aywa esmy ahmed , mn masr
  • Loading...
  • About

    Birthday:
    Sep 10, 1964 (Age: 59)
    Location:
    The Great Satan
    Occupation:
    Flight Instructor
    98f jMwas 5f nvopiPIhv8hJ 6h51eo sh^g54 j po w;lkn78 Qw8(v

    Aviation

    Signature

    ¡No Pasaran!